Will Wisconsin become a trend?

The world is always a complicated place. What should be simple turns out to be hard. What should be obvious turns out to be obscure. Logic tells us that when the law says everyone should buy something, this should make for a bigger market. When the market is bigger, the prices should fall. In the case of insurance, this should be even more true. The whole point of insurance is that you gather a group of people together and share the cost of the risk between them. The more people in the group, the smaller the cost of each share. Except it never works out like you expect. When it comes to capitalism and the profit motive, logic loses out to corporations and their need to pay a dividend to their stockholders.

This is a story about Wisconsin today. Tomorrow, it could be about states across the US. The reason? The same problems that the state lawmakers were trying to solve in Wisconsin apply to every other state in the union. Let’s start at the beginning. All but three states have laws requiring vehicle owners to carry liability insurance when they drive on a public road. They all set minimum levels of cover against personal injuries and property damage caused to third parties. The justification is all about responsibility. The general view is that if you injure someone else, you should compensate them. Unfortunately, not everyone has a pile of cash sitting in their bank account so insurance is the name of the game. This gives every innocent victim the chance to get some money to cover their medical bills and repair their property. Continue reading →

It’s one of those sad facts of life that ageing is inevitable. Being philosophical about it – it’s going to happen so you might as well celebrate it. The question is how society should celebrate ageing. People who rely on driving to get them around while working, continue to need their vehicles when they retire. Let’s face it. In most US towns and cities, few people walk. Everyone drives. Fifty years ago, not many seniors drove around because life expectancy was a lot lower than it is today. Now more people own cars and, with more leisure time and better health, go out and about on the roads. This creates an interesting dilemma for states. Let’s take Massachusetts as an example. Back in 1977, the legislature decided to grant seniors a reward for living so long. Regardless of their driving records, everyone over the age of 65 was given a 25% discount on their insurance premiums. This encouraged the car culture. Seniors were thought safer drivers, so it was alright to let them drive rather than walk around. The price tab was picked up by all the other drivers. The cost of the discount was spread across the premiums for all the other insured groups.

So how has this worked out? All the statistics from 1977 to date prove the initial assumption. Drivers in the age range 65 to 74 have fewer accidents than any other group on the road. This is due to three factors: they tend to drive more slowly, they have more experience than everyone else and they tend to drive at off-peak times when the danger is less. Thus, that group deserves a discount. Whether it should be 25% is not the point. There is considerable social benefit in continuing to encourage mobility among seniors. They go out and spend money in the community. They stay fit and healthy and are less of a burden on the health care services. But drivers aged 75 and over lose their edge. The body is slowing down. Reflexes and eyesight are not what they were. Their claims record is second only to the age group up to 25. This is sparking a debate about whether the discount should be removed for the oldest drivers. Continue reading →

There’s a sobering saying, “The female of the species is more deadly than the male.” It first surfaced in a poem by Rudyard Kipling and achieved international recognition through the “shock shock horror” song by Space. Taken literally when applied to humanity, it suggests women are more likely to kill you than men. Except, when it comes to driving, this is almost certainly not true. There’s a myth put about by men that women are bad drivers. Talk to the average male driver and they will pour scorn on women, telling tall stories about dangerous behavior on the roads. Yet this sexist view is not supported by the accident statistics. When you add up all the numbers from around the world, men are three times more likely to die on the roads than women. The truth seems to be that men may have better spatial awareness and so slightly better control of their vehicles. But women have better self-control which makes them safer drivers. The result in the gender stakes is that men, particularly when young, are more reckless than women, driving faster with less attention. Women are more cautious, driving more slowly and causing fewer serious accidents. Even more importantly, women have fewer emotional hang-ups about the cars they drive. Whereas men prefer to be seen in fast, sleek sporty cars, women tend to have more modest (and cheaper) tastes. Continue reading →